There is a difference..
How many boundary lines are there? Do you just show them the choices or try to solve it and show THE BOUNDARY? If the land surveyor can't study and understand the law what purpose do they provide to society?
Folks if we are going to reduce surveying to staking out the math of a deed our days are numbered. Just about anyone with some math knowledge will be able to do that with their phone in a few years. If we are not going to honor the original markers set by a surveyor 20 years ago (and used and relied upon by the landowners) why set markers at all for the next surveyor down the road to reject because the math ain't perfect.
Apply the law, set your tools aside until you've determined where the boundary has been established by the law. Yeah, IF the boundary hasn't been established then you can look to more precisely setting out the math and calls in the deed.
The worst thing you can do is stake a new line away from the legally established boundary line (mark the boundary where it legally ain't!)!
Ah, this old chestnut again.
Read on for my opinion.
Stephen
Since They Were Not Set By The Original Surveyor, NO!
> The highway itself is the monument. Hold the highway.
>
By that I assume that you mean to hold the pavement. OK, and how does the pavement relate to the R/W?
Stephen
Since They Were Not Set By The Original Surveyor, NO!
Adjacent prperty goes to the correct right of way. The State has no need for additional land, nor claim to incorrect monuments outside the ROW, nor will they yield to incorrect monuments within the ROW. They have what they took, no more, no less."
>
>
Well, the correct R/W is the issue at hand here. Obviously the adjoining property terminates at the correct R/W.
Also, the fact that it is the state matters not. It might matter if this had the potential to involve AP, but it doesn't.
Stephen
Since They Were Not Set By The Original Surveyor, NO!
And what do you mean they weren't set by the original surveyor? Yes, they were. They were set by the state, who were surveying their own land. That's allowed. And if they were accepted by the adjoiners, then you've got a property line.
Stephen
> Most interstates have the land taken (acquired) by plans, the roads are built, and virtually the last thing done is set the monuments.
>
>
That doesn't matter. Even if it did, do the plans show the R/W monuments?
Stephen
> If you can reconcile the plans with the majority of the monuments, hold the plans. The monuments are in the wrong place - simple as that.
I once heard that original monuments have no error. Have you ever heard that?
Stephen
> >
> > If you can reconcile the plans with the majority of the monuments, hold the plans. The monuments are in the wrong place - simple as that.
>
> Playing devils advocate for a moment here Dave. If we take that approach to its logical conclusion, I use pure math and ignore all the monuments. None will check to the gnats backside. Some will be pretty close but none will be exactly mathematically where they are computed.
>
> How does that approach differ from being a deed staker and creating the virtual pin-cushions we all love to hate?
>
> Larry P
Don't get drawn into that, Larry. As a professional, you should know when close enough is close enough. For me, I have no threshold limit going outward, beyond which I will not accept a monument. In the right circumstances, I could accept one that is over a hundred feet out. I do have a threshold going inward, beyond which I will not reject a monument. It is approximately .6 feet. Note that it is not hard and fast, it is a guideline. Also, there are exceptions, such as determining boundaries in downtown Tokyo.
Yes, I am saying that there are definitely times when monuments should be rejected. But they are the exception, and I haven't seen one of these times when R/W monuments are involved.
Stephen
Hold the monuments? Why not?
First off, the principle that one cannot adverse possess against the government does not apply. This is not an adverse possession case, and even it was, the surveyor should not express an opinion either way. The situation presented is nothing more than the location of an existing boundary line – it is what we surveyors do every day. It is a boundary line, separating one estate from another – pure and simple.
Neither is this is a case of acquiescence. The boundary was created upon the transfer and the monumentation of the line. Both parties know and knew where the line was when the fences were built. The only problem encountered is that the monuments are not fitting the math as close as we would like them to.
Ok, you are retracing a previously established boundary line, a monumented boundary line no less, in which you are recovering the monuments set during or very near the time of the transfer. Do monuments mean anything or are they subordinate to the math??? Why do monuments nearly always hold over math and measurement? It is because the monuments are the physical manifestation of the intent of the landowners.
Apparently Larry has found several latent ambiguities. Now what? Look to the boundary laws for answers.
Generally in the face of an ambiguity, the deed is construed against the grantor. This is because generally the grantor is in control of the transaction. However, in this case, I would probably construe against the grantee (the state) because the state was in complete control of the transaction which created the boundary line(s). The state designed the highway and determined the necessary dimensions of the taking, whether or not eminent domain was involved. The state was in control of preparing the descriptions. The state was in control of the monument placement, even if it was careless contractors who performed the work. In this case I would definitely lean toward holding the monuments, pending the discovery of further evidence of course.
> Well, in this case the "deed staker" was supposed to do it right based on the math of the highway plans and didn't do it right. So it is correctable.
>
>
Not after the property line has been accepted and established.
Stephen
>
>
> As to "how close is close enough"- that is the age old argument. Since the monuments are probably 6" square, you've got a pretty fair margin of slop that will still hit the monument. I would not chisel a crows foot onto it.
>
>
Well, that we can agree on.
Stephen
I agree with Paul on this
> The highway IS the monument. I've actually watched laborers with an auger pull up a stake, begin a hole, hit a rock or root and move to a more convenient location. I've seen monuments on one side of the fence and the clearly marked stake and hub on the other. I WOULD show the location of the monuments but also indicate why I reject the LOCATION of the monument.
>
> Andy
Sounds like the state didn't care too much where they marked the boundary. Well, that's not good, but it doesn't change anything, they were still marking the boundary, under the direction of one of the adjoining landowners. They were marking the boundary, and the boundary is what got marked.
Stephen
There is a difference..
:good:
I've worked highways in Texas, Arkansas and Louisiana and all use the center line stationing and offset method.
With the Federal Government involved the game can change, they don't follow state laws. They tell your local State DOT what to do. They control the money that goes to build and upkeep Interstate Highways and US Highways.
From what I've experienced, they will claim to the monuments if that is in their favor or they will insist that they get what the plans say when the monument is in the wrong place.
They don't loose land and if they can gain land by rule, they take it.
On the newer highway plans, there are so many details, the Station Equations are harder for me to identify because they are not in bold print and in large lettering like they were in the earlier plans.
😉
There is a difference..
I think the difference is fairly clear here, these monuments were set by contractors who took little care in setting them. I equate the situation to a subdivision in the PLS where a surveyor did not take care to find the original section corner and sets his monuments over the section line. In this case, the takings, deeds, plats and construction all precede the settings of these monuments. Since the monuments are NOT original, I see no problem ignoring those that obviously do not represent the true boundaries.
Hold the monuments? Why not?
Brian, the boundary was established long before these monuments were set. The deeds predate the monuments. Basically, you have a poor retracement survey. Would that change your opinion?
Larry, I expressed my thoughts below. Since the deeds predate these monuments, the monuments set in error are not controlling. Basically, it is a poor retracement of the boundary. That said, you know in NC we are not supposed to decide such things and you should show both deed lines and physical possession lines and let the lawyers hash it out......but we both know our opinions of that..
> What say you?
Argument to hold the monuments: if in your best professional judgement you are convinced that the monuments would be held by the highest court that the case could be appealed to in your jurisdiction should the location of the boundaries end up being adjudicated.
Argument to ignore the monuments: if in your best professional judgement you are convinced that the monuments would be rejected by the highest court that the case could be appealed to in your jurisdiction, should the location of the boundaries end up being adjudicated.
Q.E.D.
Boundaries follow State law even in Federal Court.
The Feds can make it up as they go but that doesn't mean what they want is enforceable. I assume they usually win because the property owners don't have the resources to fight them.
I just want to say this: monuments should hold by default, not the other way around. The Land Surveying profession has had it backwards, requiring monuments to be proven and giving deference to the writings which is backwards.
Maybe the monuments should be disregarded, we don't have enough information on the forum to determine that. If they are disregarded then have a very good reason for why they are disregarded.
When there is a conflict a rigorous process should be undertaken to determine which evidence controls using your State's Statute and Common law as the guide. All of the law is easily accessible at your local law library, the legal profession is very well organized in this regard.